Induced Earthquakes A Potential Hazard for Geological Storage of Carbon Dioxide

Summary.  The world is burning fossil fuels at an ever-increasing rate, resulting in increased release of the greenhouse gas carbon dioxide into the atmosphere.  This results in an increase in the long-term globally averaged temperature.  Consequently there is great interest in developing carbon capture and storage in geological repositories to help abate the increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide.

Zoback and Gorelick have just published a paper that a) emphasizes the vast amounts of carbon dioxide that need to be captured and stored, and b) analyzes in detail the likelihood that small-scale earthquakes may be induced at the injection sites because of the increased fluids introduced into the storage sites.  Their concern is that even small to medium scale earthquakes may destroy the integrity of the sites, leading to significant leakage of carbon dioxide back into the atmosphere.  They conclude that extensive deployment of carbon storage involves considerable risk.

Background.  Zoback and Gorelick have analyzed the long-term geological storage of carbon dioxide (CO₂) as a means of permanently removing this greenhouse gas from the atmosphere by carbon capture and storage (CCS; see the next section).  First we present some introductory information on CCS. (Background on CCS may be found in this earlier post.)

The European Union (EU) has embarked on the only multinational program in the world, based on binding enacted policies, to reduce emissions below the emissions levels of 1990 by 20% by 2020, and by 80-95% by 2050 (the EU Roadmap; see this post).  Achieving such goals requires decarbonization of most energy sources.  The EU recognizes that a major portion of this reduction should come from use of CCS for large scale fixed sources involved in generating electricity. 

To begin research and development of CCS technology, the EU has selected six demonstration projects in six member countries, using differing capture and sequestration technologies.  The EU has committed EUR1 billion (US$1.25 billion) to them.  Variously, they range in size from one at 30 MW (to be scaled up to over 300 MW) to 900 MW, with most projects expected to capture about 90% of the emitted CO₂.  Storage will be in land-based or offshore saline aquifers, and depleted land-based or offshore gas fields.

In the U. S. the state of California is implementing a plan very similar to the EU’s Roadmap.  In a non-official report detailing how California might attain these goals, the California Science and Technology Council (CSTC) relies heavily on decarbonizing energy sources to the greatest extent possible (see this earlier post).  Electricity generation is to be decarbonized, to the extent that use of fossil fuels is maintained, by use of industrial-scale CCS, even though the report recognizes that this technology remains unproven.  Decarbonization of electricity generation is especially important because CSTC envisions use of electric vehicles to decarbonize transportation.

The U. S. Department of Energy (DOE) is sponsoring research on CCS, as reported in the Carbon SequestrationProgram: Technology Program Plan of the National Energy Technology Laboratory.  Its budget request for Fiscal Year 2011 was about US$140 million, with anticipated sharing by an equal amount from Regional Carbon Sequestration Partnerships with universities and corporations.  This budget has grown from about US$10 million in 2000.  Recent support from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (the fiscal “stimulus”), included in the recent growth of this funding, is essentially exhausted at this time. All aspects of the various stages in capture, release and concentration, transportation and geological storage, as well as monitoring, verification and accounting, are being investigated at laboratory and small pilot scale.

Similar programs are also supported in the DOE Fossil Energy program.  Their requested budget for Fiscal Year 2013 is about US$276 million for CCS and Power Systems, which supports projects as large as industrial scale pilot projects.

Cautionary Analysis of CCS.  Zoback and Gorelick analyzed the dangers to maintenance of reservoir integrity in geological sequestration of CO₂, in a paper published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, June 26, 2012, vol. 109, pp. 10164-10168 .  As background, the authors note:

·        CCS will be very costly;

·        in the U. S. use of coal for generating electricity produces about 2.1 billion metric tons of CO₂ a year, or about 36% of all U. S. emissions;

·        China’s emissions are about 3 times more than this from coal-fired generation, corresponding to about 80% of its emission rate;

·        annually, on a worldwide basis, CCS has to contend with 3.5 billion tons of CO₂, which requires injecting an amount of CO₂ underground roughly equal to the volume of all the oil extracted from oil wells worldwide;

·        this amount of injected CO₂ requires that worldwide about 3,500 functional industrial-scale injection facilities be operational by mid-century, averaged to about 85 facilities added per year; and

·        geological storage must remain faultlessly leak-tight in order to compare with freedom from emissions of renewable energy sources.

The authors include the following analyses:

o       The paper itemizes several instances of earthquakes apparently triggered by underground injection of liquids.  This can arise because many geological formations are already in states of unresolved stress, so that the relatively minor perturbation arising from fluid injection releases the stress in an earthquake.  The fluid in essence makes it easier for the stressed surfaces to slide over one another, which is the hallmark of an earthquake.  Zoback and Gorelick emphasize that it is not any land-based earthquake damage to human wellbeing that concerns them, but rather that even small earthquakes, likely not to produce damage to structures, are likely to damage the geological structures holding the pressurized CO₂.  CO₂ could then readily permeate to or near the surface, permitting release into the atmosphere and defeating the intent of the storage in the first place.  They present the results of calculations that even a small earthquake of Magnitude 4 could induce slippage of several cm. along a fault of about 1-4 km (0.6-2.4 mi).

o       In stressed geological formations, it is not only the pressure of injected CO₂ that is potentially hazardous, but also the rate of injection.  More rapid pressure buildup is more likely to trigger an earthquake event; the need to dispose of large volumes of CO₂ would be an incentive for high injection rates.

o       A widely known injection site is the Utsira formation of the Sleipner gas field in the North Sea.  About 1 million tons of CO₂ has been separated from natural gas and reinjected below ground every year, for the past 15 years.  There has been no earthquake activity to date.  The authors calculate that about 3,500 such sites would have to be identified and put into service to accommodate storage needs projected for 2050 (most of which would be needed right now, in fact).  The authors conclude “Clearly this is an extraordinarily difficult, if not impossible task” if only geologically suitable sites are to be used.

o       Depleted oil and gas wells, while seemingly attractive as potential injection sites, are not numerous enough to satisfy the need, and are not necessarily located conveniently for the need.

The authors conclude “multiple lines of evidence indicate that preexisting faults found in brittle rocks almost everywhere in the earth’s crust are subject to failure, often in response to very small increases in pore pressure. In light of the risk posed to a CO₂ repository by even small- to moderate-sized earthquakes, formations suitable for large-scale injection of CO₂ must be carefully chosen.”  Because of the extremely large volumes of CO₂ needing to be disposed of, the industrial-scale CCS needed will be “extremely expensive and risky for achieving significant reductions in greenhouse gas emissions”.

Certain CCS projects have been abandoned due to risk and lack of financing.  The very factors identified by Zoback and Gorelick are echoed in these two recent news reports. 

The Guardian on June 17, 2012 reported that Ian Marchant, chief executive of Scottish and Southern Energy, while still favoring CCS development, warned the British Parliament that a CCS project his company is undertaking is “the most risky project I’ll ever invest in….CCS is…at the demonstration stage….We do not know that this technology will work”.  He called for UK government support at this demonstration phase of the project.

The same article noted that another company, Scottish Power, abandoned CCS technology last year.  Together with Shell, the company evaluated it would need at least £1.5 billion (US$2.3 billion), and the UK government could not support such a funding level.

Similarly, theGuardian reported on June 26, 2012 that Ayrshire Power (Scotland) abandoned its planned new CCS-fitted 1852 MW power plant because it feared it could not obtain funding from the UK and the European Commission.  Nevertheless, the Scottish energy minister still strongly supports CCS development since it borders North Sea offshore CO₂ storage sites.

Rebuttals of Zoback and Gorelick’s warnings.  There has been response from the CCS community rebutting the serious concerns expressed by Zoback and Gorelick.  For example, two scientists were featured in the internet-based Carbon CaptureJournal (accessed June 27, 2012).

Dr. Malcolm Wilson, Chief Executive Officer, The Petroleum Technology Research Centre (PTRC), provided a detailed accounting of the experience gained at the Weyburn-Midale Project, an oil field storage development project in Saskatchewan, Canada, which it seems is an extended oil recovery project as well.  Storage has been under way there for 11 years, with a total of 21 million tonnes (metric tons) of CO₂ stored in that time.  Detailed research and characterization of the site has been undertaken throughout this time; indeed, seismic events with Magnitudes of -1 (extremely small) have been recorded.  Dr. Wilson considers this site now to be industrial scale, as 2.8 million tonnes of new CO₂, and more than 5 million tonnes when recycled CO₂ are included, have been injected; no earthquake activity or leakage has been identified.

PTRC is also conducting research on their Aquistore Project, for storage in saline aquifers.  Noting with approval that Zoback and Gorelick cite aquifers favorably because of their very large storage capacities, Dr. Wilson notes that the Aquistore Project will be the first industrial scale storage project, since it will receive CO₂ from a coal-fired power plant.

Dr. Bruce Hill, senior staff geologist at Clean Air Task Force (CATF) rebuts the concern over lack of integrity of storage sites due to earthquake activity by emphasizing the rate of CO₂ migration toward the surface, rather than the total amounts potentially released.  Dr. Hill emphasizes that there are many layers of rock structures, extending thousands of feet, overlaying injection sites, seeming to belittle the concerns of Zoback and Gorelick.  Dr. Hill feels that the examples cited by the authors are not representative.  He points out that “approximately 1 billion tons of CO₂ have been safely injected (and stored) in the process of enhanced oil recovery in the U.S. since the late 1970s, with no reported seismic incidents. In fact, there have been no earthquakes reported anywhere from saline CO₂ injections either”.

Dr. Hill concludes that CCS technology is “viable” and should play a significant role in potentially storing the very large amounts of CO₂ that need to be recovered to reduce atmospheric CO₂ accumulation.

George Peridas responded to the paper on the Natural Resources Defense Council Blog on June 22, 2012.  Mr. Peridas believes that Zoback and Gorelick raise valid issues, including whether CCS can cause earthquakes and whether such earthquakes could lead to leakage of the injected CO₂.  But in his opinion, the conclusions reached by the authors are more extensive than warranted by the evidence, for example with respect to the second issue, leakage.  He does not agree that an earthquake event would lead to migration of CO₂ all the way to the surface.  He believes that an experiment cited by the authors, performed on granite, a brittle mineral, is not representative of capstone layers anticipated in CCS, which would be more compliant, yet impermeable, shales.  In the case of existing fossil fuel geological reservoirs, large earthquakes have been known to occur without loss of the materials.  Mr. Peridas additionally cites Sally Benson (Stanford University and Lead Coordinating Author of the Underground Geological Storage Chapter in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Special Report on CCS) as stating that naturally care must be taken in choosing CCS injection sites, but that finding such sites should be feasible.

Discussion

Our earlier post, “Carbon Capture and Storage: A Needed yet Unproven Technology”, presented background information on the various technologies that may be employed in each phase of capturing CO₂, from the burning of fossil fuels for energy, to transporting the CO₂ to a storage site, and finally the actual storage process.   Many problems remain to make CCS industrially viable for utility-scale facilities.  Resolving these problems requires investment of large sums of money, worldwide, to arrive at practical CCS by about 2020.  Currently a relatively small number of demonstration and pilot projects are under way around the world.

The use of fossil fuels is projected to grow considerably in the coming decades around the globe, primarily in developing countries which will power their rapidly expanding economies with energy derived from burning fossil fuels.  This means that the annual rate of CO₂ emissions will continue expanding, and that the total accumulated concentration of atmospheric CO₂ likewise will continue increasing.  Even in developed countries having programs to abate CO₂ emissions at various stages of maturity, a major aspect of such abatement involves shifting transportation to electric power.  Thus the total demand for electricity is projected to grow in developed countries as well; to the extent that this demand is not met by renewable sources the need for contending with abatement of CO₂ emissions likewise will grow.  For this reason emission abatement programs will rely ever more heavily on technologies such as CCS.

The paper by Zoback and Gorelick serves at least three useful functions.  First, by arithmetic analysis, it underscores the vast, unprecedented need for functional and effective injection sites projected by 2050.  Some of this information has been summarized above.

Second, its geophysical modeling emphasizes the many unknown factors remaining in choosing and developing new CO₂ injection sites.  The seals installed surrounding well bores, and the many geological factors involved in retaining the injected CO₂ out of contact with the atmosphere for hundreds or thousands of years must be essentially fail-safe.  Yet this work emphasizes that the very act of injecting pressurized fluid facilitates potential small-scale earthquakes that, according to the modeling, have the potential of opening fissures in these seals that could lead CO₂ back to the surface.

Third, it has engendered fruitful debate in the CCS community about the integrity of proposed injection sites.  Although these issues were already known among workers in the community, they have now been aired among a wider public.  This has the effect of ensuring that research and data gathering, involved in characterizing new injection sites, will be carried out diligently and effectively so that wise siting choices may be made.

The critics of Zoback and Gorelick, such as those cited above, include examples in their rebuttals of injection sites taking advantage of pre-existing wells used in the extraction of oil and gas from their geological repositories.  These have kept the fuels underground for millions of years, and so are cited as justifying CO₂ injection for the same reasons.  These are likely not representative of the thousands of new storage injection projects that will be needed to accommodate the demand.  Overall the number of pilot injection sites worldwide is small, and many are new experimental projects.  The concerns raised by Zoback and Gorelick merit careful attention going forward as CCS technology is developed further and deployed in number.

© 2012 Henry Auer

Efficiency and Decarbonization of Transportation

Summary.  Transportation policy plays an important role in meeting the overall objective of the IPCC to limit warming of the long-term global average temperature.  It is challenging to reduce CO₂ emissions, or to decarbonize, the myriad sources involved in transporting people and goods, so that other solutions are being developed.  These include making vehicles powered by internal combustion engines more efficient, and migrating to the use of electric vehicles powered by electricity that has been generated using renewable technologies.

States, nations and regions are approaching the problem of reducing emissions from transportation in different ways.  Some use market mechanisms and others use taxation, to put a price on carbon or on vehicles that burn fossil fuels.  Others issue regulations with efficiency goals that reduce the emission of CO₂.  The European Union is the only jurisdiction that has created a comprehensive transportation roadmap to reduce emissions and develop a trans-national integrated transportation system, all by 2050.

Lowering CO₂ emissions by transport vehicles is an important aspect of overall global climate change policy.  Both government policy and private enterprise can play major roles in developing new technologies to accomplish this objective. 

Climate change policy adopted by the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), the organization of most nations of the world that sponsored the Kyoto Protocol and is seeking its extension, is based on a science-derived finding of the U. N.-sponsored Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in its 4^th Assessment Report.  It seeks to limit the accumulated atmospheric concentration of CO₂ (and other greenhouse gases expressed as CO₂ equivalents) to 450 parts per million (ppm), which is estimated to constrain the long-term global average temperature increase above the temperature that prevailed before the start of the industrial revolution to 2ºC (3.6ºF). 

 
The pre-industrial atmospheric CO₂ concentration was 280 ppm.  Presently the CO₂ concentration is about 393 ppm, and the global average temperature increase to date is about 0.7 ºC (1.3ºF).  Both these numbers are growing as mankind uses more and more fossil fuels and emits more and more CO₂ (and other greenhouse gases) into the atmosphere.  Since transportation accounts for about 25-30% of global CO₂ emissions there is a strong motivation to make this sector more fuel efficient, when using fossil fuels, and to decarbonize  the movement of people and goods wherever possible (i. e., eliminate the release of atmospheric greenhouse gases).
 
Internal combustion engines are highly inefficient.  Personal passenger transport is powered by internal combustion engines (ICE) that are fueled mostly by gasoline, refined from crude oil.  Burning fossil fuels injects the greenhouse gas carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, in a one-way flow from the geological deposits containing the oil to the release of a car’s exhaust to the atmosphere.  Yet use of ICEs is highly inefficient in terms of converting the chemical energy contained in the oil into useful mechanical energy, namely, propelling a car along the road.  This is shown below.

Energy use and losses in driving an automobile powered by an internal combustion engine, for combined city/highway driving.  The useful energy is “Power to Wheels”, lower right.  Its percentage is slightly lower for all-city driving, and slightly higher for all-highway driving (see the website below).  Source: Energy Efficiency & Renewable Energy, U. S. Dept. of Energy; http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/atv.shtml

It is remarkable that only 1/7 to 1/4 (depending on city to highway driving) of the energy contained in the fuel is used in moving the car.  It is even more surprising that “Engine Losses” include heat that is deliberately dissipated via the car’s radiator and exhaust, which constitutes about 56-64% of the energy in the fuel (depending on city to highway driving). 

The energy that propels the vehicle along the road must overcome the forces opposing forward motion, namely wind resistance, rolling resistance and braking (Power to Wheels, see graphic above).  These are susceptible of improvement.  Yet even if they were fully eliminated, which of course is not possible, there would still be the very high thermal losses (Engine Losses, see graphic above) that arise as long as the power source is an ICE. 

Reducing losses and increasing efficiency are considered in many sources (see References).  Among the most significant is weight reduction.  The inertia of an object is directly related to its weight.  It takes energy to change its inertia, for example when accelerating a car from a stop.  A lighter car will need less energy for acceleration than a heavier one.  A lighter car, needing less energy, can then incorporate a smaller engine, thereby decreasing weight even more.   

In addition, lighter materials can be used fabricate the frame and body of the car.  These include new steel alloys, alternative metals such as magnesium, aluminum and titanium, and nonmetallic composites such as carbon-fiber materials and strong plastics.  The Canadian Automobile Association states that vehicle weight can be reduced by as much as 40%, and that each weight reduction of 10% improves fuel economy by 5 to 7%.   

Smaller ICEs, in addition to being lighter, are also more efficient in converting the energy in the fuel to the forward motion of the car.  The Canadian Automobile Association, citing data from Natural Resources Canada’s 2008 Fuel Consumption Guide, shows that there is a much larger percentage increase in fuel economy in a compact car than in an SUV or a pick-up truck by making the engine smaller.  This factor is in addition to the considerable fuel economy achieved just by driving a compact car as opposed to an SUV or a pick-up truck.   

Streamlining the body lines of a car reduces its aerodynamic drag resistance to forward motion, a second important factor in optimizing efficiency of automobile transport.  In addition to the improvement in body shape that is obvious to the observer, shielding wheel wells and the underbody of the car further would improve its aerodynamic flow properties.   

Rolling resistance to forward motion refers to the deformation of tires as they roll along the road.  The tire, a semi-rigid object, is circular when it bears no weight, but is flattened out where it contacts the road when the car’s weight rests on it.  Energy is dissipated in the tire when this happens, and of course this goes on continuously as the car rolls along the roadway.  New high-efficiency tires, which optimize tread and sidewall design as well as incorporate new materials that dissipate less energy on deformation decrease rolling resistance.  Thus the losses ascribed in the graphic above to rolling resistance, amounting to 5-6% of the input energy of the fuel, can be reduced in some cases by as much as 20%.   

Capturing waste heat.  As seen in the graphic above, a major portion of the energy provided by burning fuel in an ICE, perhaps 60% or more, is lost as heat.  Research and development of technologies in ICE-driven vehicles that capture some of this heat are at an early stage, even though this aspect of vehicle inefficiency potentially offers the greatest gains in optimizing fuel economy.  

Thermoelectric conversion of heat directly to electricity relies on use of semiconductors that generate electricity when placed between two objects whose temperatures differ.  Schock and coworkers reported on research sponsored by the Energy Efficiency Renewable Energy program of the U. S. Dept. of Energy in a workshop in January 2011.  They fabricated and tested two different thermoelectric semiconductor materials, generating 70W or more.  They estimate that the payback period for the extra cost of a 1kW system is about 1 year, and for a 5kW system about 3 years.  Other thermoelectric systems, using various high-temperature  semiconductors, are being tested by BMW, Ford and Chevrolet, according to a report from May 2011.

Thermomechanical energy.  In 2005 Joaquin G. Ruiz, an undergraduate at Massachusetts Institute of Technology, proposed a way of capturing the heat generated in the catalytic converter in the exhaust train of an ICE-powered car to obtain more mechanical energy.  He estimated that overall thermal efficiency of fuel utilization (the numbers in the graphic above) could be improved by 7%, to be added to his estimate of 30% efficiency in current ICE fuel use.  In other words, his device would have a relative improvement in efficiency of more than 20%.  Honda is experimenting with a similar system that is reported to improve the thermal efficiency by 3.8% in a hybrid electric vehicle.

Cars powered by electricity, either partially or entirely, are expected to be far more efficient than full ICE-driven cars.  Electric cars were considered in an earlier post on this blog.  It discussed the all-electric Nissan LEAF, the two models of the all-electric Tesla Motors cars, the all-electric Mitsubishi iMiEV minicar, and the ICE-assisted electric Chevy Volt. 

Manufacturers of these electric cars emphasize their environmental advantage in having zero or minimal tailpipe emissions of CO₂.  Electric motors such as used in electric cars are highly efficient, capable of converting more than 90% of the electrical energy into the mechanical energy of motion.  As pointed out in the earlier post, however, these cars actually have low or zero emissions only to the extent that the electricity used to charge the batteries itself is obtained from renewable or low-CO₂ emitting generation sources.  Coal-fired electric generation is the least efficient, whereas modern natural gas-fired plants using combined cycle generation attain quite high efficiencies and much lower emissions of CO₂.  By 2035, the U. S. National Academy of Engineering estimates that even for all-electric vehicles, the greenhouse gas emissions will remain at 30-50% as much as currently emitted by ICE-powered cars because electricity will still be  generated to a considerable extent from fossil fuels.  Optimally, use of renewable sources such as wind power, solar power, hydroelectric power and geothermal power will provide truly zero emission generation of electricity.

BMW electric drive-train cars, BMWi3 and BMWi8 (see this video), strive to achieve sustainability to optimize energy efficiency by radically new design.  The heavier weight of the large-capacity electric batteries is offset by replacing metal bodies with carbon fiber-reinforced plastic which is lighter than any metal used in car construction, yet is stronger in crash tests.  The video states that this is the first use of carbon fiber in production cars.

Hybrid-electric cars are powered in tandem by electric motors and ICEs; the cars are engineered so that the two energy sources share the burden of propelling the car.  The Toyota Prius and Honda’s Civic Hybrid and Insight are examples of hybrid-electric cars currently available.

California’s plan to decarbonize passenger vehicles.  In the U. S., California has the most advanced plan, affecting the most people, to reduce greenhouse gas emissions of all the states.  In an unofficial report detailing a path to achieving the state’s goal of reducing emissions by 80% by 2050, the California Council on Science and Technology (CCST) emphasizes the major role that will need to be played by decarbonizing the energy industry (see this post).  The report expects that personal transport will be achieved by electric vehicles, and that the electricity that powers these vehicles (and provides energy generally for the economy) will be generated largely by decarbonized sources.  Fossil fuels may continue providing the energy for electricity generation to the extent that the currently unproven technology of carbon capture and (geological) storage will be developed to industrial scale.  Otherwise renewable energy sources must be relied upon, in the view of the report.

U. S. government extends fuel efficiency standards.  In 2011 the administration of President Obama extended the Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standard to 55.4 mpg for cars by 2025.  The previous CAFÉ standard issued by the Obama administration in 2009 raised the value to 35.5 mpg by 2016.  In addition the 2025 mandate covers new fuel efficiency standards on medium- and heavy-duty trucks.  It is expected to prevent emission of large amounts of CO₂, save fuel costs to drivers, and reduce the need to import oil from foreign producers.  These savings, in the case of trucks, are expected to offset the extra cost of compliance with the standard, reaching payback within two years.

China and other developing countries will be responsible for a major increase in the number of passenger vehicles in use in coming decades, according to the International Energy Agency (IEA).  Its World Energy Outlook (WEO) 2010 (Executive Summary) analyzes present and projected world-wide production and consumption of energy over the period 2010-2035.  The New Policies Scenario of the WEO predicts changes in energy demand resulting from measures to be taken in response to the commitments made at the UNFCCC Copenhagen meeting of nations in 2009.  WEO judges that under this Scenario CO₂ emissions continue to rise, by 21% over the level of 2008.

The growth in passenger vehicles in regions of the world, actual and projected under the New Policies Scenario, is shown below.

Actual growth in number of passenger vehicles (1980-2008) and projected growth (2020, 2035).  Other non-OECD (developing) countries includes India, for example.  Reproduced from World Energy Outlook 2010 © OECD/IEA.  The OECD has essentially similar membership as the IEA, plus 5 additional nations; http://www.worldenergyoutlook.org/docs/weo2010/weo2010_london_nov9.pdf

The growth for China reflects its pronounced economic growth over this period, resulting in a large shift of its population into a middle class that demands personal cars, among other amenities.  It is seen from the chart that other developing countries are likewise projected to experience large increases in the number of passenger cars.  

Current technology emphasizes powering passenger cars with fossil fuel-driven ICEs, leading to a large increase in greenhouse gas emissions worldwide from this source.  But the Edmunds Auto Observer reports that, as of 2009, China’s fleet-average fuel efficiency, including SUVs and minivans, was already 36.8 miles per gallon (mpg), and that the country has mandated an increase to 42.2-mpg by 2015.  A tax on vehicles based on their engine size provides a further economic incentive impelling Chinese purchasers toward smaller vehicles.   The current tax rates are shown in red bars in the graphic below.


Vehicle excise tax in China based on engine size.  Source: Huiming Gong, The Energy Foundation;  http://www.egeec.apec.org/www/UploadFile/apec_wppeet_gong_huiming.pdf

It is seen that there is a strong tax incentive to purchase smaller cars having smaller engines, and that this incentive became more pronounced for the largest cars after 2008.  In addition to this vehicle excise tax, there is a fuel tax as well.  Conversely, according to The China New Energy Vehicles Program , pilot programs are deploying electric vehicles in as many as 25 Chinese cities, beginning with government vehicle fleets. Purchases of electric vehicles by the public will be subsidized and vehicle charging stations will be deployed.  RMB 100 billion (USD 15.9 billion) will be devoted to new energy vehicles in the next 10 years.  While some reductions in CO₂ emissions occur as a result of China’s shift toward use of electric vehicles, it is not as great as it could be in view of the fact that a major portion of China’s electricity is generated from coal-fired power plants.  These emit about twice as much CO₂ per kWh as do modern natural gas-fired generating plants. 

Europe’s integrated economy-wide transportation plan.  The European Commission (EC) has developed a plan, currently being implemented by the nations of the European Union (EU), to limit greenhouse gas emissions from all sources by 20% below the levels of 1990 by 2020, and by at least 80% by 2050 (see this earlier post).  As part of this program the EC has set forth its transportation program in a White Paper on Transport (see References).  Its objective is to achieve a single EU-wide transport area that closely integrates all modes of transportation and unifies modes of transportation across national boundaries.  The plan intends to reduce the EU’s dependence on oil for transport by 60% by 2050, while enhancing efficiency and the mobility of goods and people, and promoting economic development.  The White Paper recognizes that action must begin without delay, since an extended period of planning, building and implementing the system will be needed.  The following are among the plan’s features. 

There will be incentives in urban areas to limit personal car travel, and migrate to mass transit and even bicycling and walking.  Generally personal vehicles, clearly involved mainly in short trips, will be powered other than by fossil fuel-driven engines.  This will contribute to lowering the dependence on oil, and reducing emissions of greenhouse gases and other polluting combustion products. 

Intermediate-range movements will emphasize development of multimodal means for transport, with efficient terminals facilitating the interchange of passengers and goods between modes such as vehicle use and rail use.  The White Paper observes that use of more efficient vehicles and phasing in of renewable fuels by themselves will likely not be sufficient to attain the intended objectives.  It proposes that common transportation modalities  including trains (including high-speed rail), buses and airplanes be developed to supplant personal vehicle use, and that more than 50% of freight be moved by rail and waterborne shipping by 2050 rather than by road as is currently done. 

For long distance travel, beyond the boundaries of the EU, the White Paper proposes enhancing the efficiency of aircraft and optimizing air traffic flow by developing information technology-based traffic efficiencies.  These steps should increase fuel efficiency and optimize the flow of passengers and cargo.  It is likely that the volume of air transport of the EU will double by 2050.  

Analysis

Transport, which includes passenger vehicles, heavy duty vehicles, rail, air and shipping, accounts for about 27% of all the energy consumed worldwide.  Virtually all the energy used in transport is derived from burning fossil fuels, releasing the product, CO₂, a greenhouse gas, into the atmosphere.  Vehicles powered by ICEs, and the other transport modes mentioned, are distributed sources for CO₂ emissions.  There is no obvious way to capture CO₂ from them in a way that would prevent it from entering the atmosphere. 

The number of transport vehicles is expected to rise in coming decades, due both to rising populations, especially in the developing world, and to advances in economic wellbeing as the economies of developing countries expand.  In the absence of policies that would lower the extent of CO₂ emissions from transport, this sector will contribute significantly to ever increasing annual rates of greenhouse gas emissions in coming decades.  

CO₂, once emitted into the atmosphere, persists for at least a century and probably longer.  Thus each year’s incremental addition accumulates, increasing the atmospheric CO₂ concentration.  One can think of adding CO₂ to a bathtub through its faucet; the bathtub’s drain, however, is closed so no CO₂ leaves.  Even if the faucet were turned off (i. e., reducing the annual rate of CO₂ emissions to zero), the bathtub would still have its full accumulated level of CO₂ in it.  This is why the IPCC has warned of the need to limit CO₂ emissions.  Lowering greenhouse gas emissions will help keep the level in the CO₂ bathtub as low as possible, but can not meaningfully reduce its level. 

Transport vehicles powered by ICEs (or diesel) can reduce, but not eliminate, CO₂ emissions by efficiency steps such as outlined here, significantly increasing fuel efficiency.  Distribution of more efficient vehicles among buyers is facilitated by measures such as China’s excise tax which becomes more severe as engine size increases; by a “fee-bate” regime whereby the purchase of small, efficient cars is subsidized by a tax imposed on the purchase of larger, inefficient vehicles; by fuel taxes; or by pricing CO₂ emissions using a cap-and-trade market system.  Alternative measures are exemplified by regulations that increase the required fleet-average fuel efficiency, such as imposed administratively in the U. S. Nevertheless, as long as ICE-powered vehicles remain in service, CO₂ emissions can be reduced to near zero only by substituting renewable biofuels for fossil fuels. 

The CCST elaborated an ambitious program for reducing emissions by moving toward zero-emissions electricity to power transport vehicles and the economy more generally.  The CCST plan envisions using carbon captureand sequestration (CCS) to the extent that fixed generating facilities retain the use of fossil fuels as the primary energy source.  Yet, at the present time, CCS remains an experimental technology under development; it is not clear yet that it will become feasible at the industrial scale needed to accommodate fossil fuel-derived electric power.  Additionally, the CCST report stresses the development of renewable energy sources including wind, solar and biomass. 

China’s auto excise taxes induce its car-buying public to purchase smaller, more fuel-efficient car models.  The U. S., on the other hand, has been unable for more than a decade to enact a national energy policy which would have included transportation goals for fuel efficiency.  Instead, the present Obama administration has acted twice to extend previous regulations governing average fuel efficiency for passenger cars, first in 2009, then again in 2011.  The latter standard, to be effective by 2025, is quite ambitious.  Other than that, however, there is no unified national energy policy in effect in the U. S.  The state of California has partially filled that void, by enacting overall emission reduction goals that mirror those of the European Union.  The unofficial CCST plan for complying with its state’s mandate places strong emphasis on electrifying the energy economy with zero emissions, including, for transport, a virtually complete transition to use of electric vehicles or renewable fuels. 

Among the nations of the world, it is only the trans-national European Union that is addressing its energy economy overall, and its transportation policy in particular, in a cohesive, comprehensive fashion.  The EU’s “Roadmap to a Single European Transport Area” (see References) details the many interconnected aspects of transport policy, formulated with the objective of contributing significantly to the EU’s overall Roadmap 2050 for reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 80% by that year.  The EU fashioned its Roadmap, extending beyond the expiration of the Kyoto Protocol in 2012, independently of the fruitless negotiations under the UNFCCC seeking to formulate global energy policies beyond 2012.  

The need for global policies to reduce greenhouse gas emissions is critical.  Given the significant role that transport plays in contributing to these emissions, reformulating transportation modalities to reach low- or zero-emissions is an important facet of overall energy policy.  We should strive to achieve such goals as quickly as possible.  From the many examples cited above, it is clear that there is a role to be played both by government policy, including monetary support for new technologies, and by private industry driven by motives to generate profits.   

References 

“Primer on Automobile Fuel Efficiency and Emissions”, Canadian Automobile Association, June 2009; http://www.caa.ca/primer/documents/primer-eng.pdf.  

“Reinventing Fire: Bold Business Solutions for the New Energy Era”, Amory B. Lovins and the Rocky Mountain Institute, Chelsea Green Publishing, White River Junction, VT, 2011. 

“Real Prospects for Energy Efficiency in the United States”, U. S. National Academy of Engineering, a component of the National Academies, 2010; http://books.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=12621.  A free summary may be obtained here http://www.nap.edu/catalog/12621.html . 

“California’s Energy Future: The View to 2050”, Summary Report, California Council on Science and Technology, May 2011; http://www.ccst.us/publications/2011/2011energy.pdf) 

“Roadmap to a Single European Transport Area — Towards a Competitive and Resource-Efficient Transport System” (COM (2011) 144 final, European Commission White Paper, 28 March 2011; http://ec.europa.eu/transport/strategies/doc/2011_white_paper/white-paper-illustrated-brochure_en.pdf  

“The China New Energy Vehicles Program: Challenges and Opportunities”, World Bank and PRTM Management Consultants, Inc., April 2011; http://siteresources.worldbank.org/EXTNEWSCHINESE/Resources/3196537-1202098669693/EV_Report_en.pdf

© 2012 Henry Auer

The European Union’s Energy Policy. II. Emissions Reduction Technologies

Summary:  In March 2011 European Commission issued its Energy Roadmap 2050, directed to reducing its overall emissions of greenhouse gases by 80-95% below the emissions level of 1990 by 2050.  The Roadmap implements a cap-and-trade market mechanism with successively lower greenhouse gas emission caps to provide market incentives to move away from use of fossil fuels that burn to form carbon dioxide, the important greenhouse gas (see the preceding post). 

This post summarizes the greenhouse gas abatement policies and technologies presented in the Roadmap.  The plan relies, among others, on implementing drastic energy efficiency programs, major migration away from use of fossil fuels and toward renewable energy sources, and to the extent that fossil fuels remain in use, carbon capture and storage technology to remove CO₂ before it enters the atmosphere.

The Roadmap is the first international agreement put in place that follows the expiration of the Kyoto Protocol at the end of 2012.  It provides comprehensive and detailed considerations of the many factors, technological, economic and policy-based, involved in implementing such a bold endeavor in an international framework.  As such, it provides a useful example for the nations of the world as they negotiate a successor treaty to the expiring Kyoto Protocol.

Introduction.  In March 2011 the European Commission (EC) embarked on a long term program, its Energy Roadmap 2050 (the Roadmap), to reduce its overall emissions of greenhouse gases by 80-95% below the emissions level of 1990 by 2050 (see this earlier post.  This goal was adopted as a follow-up to the earlier European Union program to reduce emissions by 20% by 2020. Additional goals for 2020 include lowering energy consumption in the EU BY 20% compared to reference projections for 2020, and obtaining 20% of the EU’s total energy, and 10% of energy used in transport, from renewable sources. The Roadmap additionally established the interim goals for emissions reductions of about 40% by 2030, and about 60% reduction by 2040.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, established under the United Nations, issued its most recent comprehensive climate report, the 4^th Assessment Report, in 2007 .  It determined that an essential objective is to limit the accumulation of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere such that the resulting global average temperature rise be less than 2ºC (3.6ºF) above the level that prevailed before the industrial revolution began. It states that “deep cuts in global greenhouse gas emissions are required according to [climate] science” to achieve this objective.  This is because higher global temperatures are predicted to inflict damages from altered weather and climate events; these are already occurring, as evidenced variously by increased aridity, drought, and wildfires; extreme rain and floods; and sea level rise, among other harmful effects, in recent years.  This objective was adopted at the Copenhagen (2009) and Cancun (2010) climate change meetings.  Currently the average global temperature has increased by about 0.75°C (1.4ºF).  Various climate models predict that further global temperatures may increase anywhere from 1.1°C to 6.4°C beyond today’s level.

The previous post detailed the EU’s Emission Trading Scheme (ETS), a cap-and-trade emission reduction program beginning in 2005 to embark on the path to reduce emissions within the member states of the European Union.  The present post summarizes the technologies and policies to be invoked in order to achieve the reductions in greenhouse gas emissions envisioned by the ETS.

Energy Roadmap 2050.  The Roadmap sets out in detail how the EU might achieve its objectives of providing a secure, competitive decarbonized energy economy (see References).  Decarbonization relies critically on implementing a variety of technologies that reduce or avoid emitting carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. This post presents a summary of the significant features of the Roadmap.

Various scenarios for achieving the objectives were explored using an EU-wide energy/economic model; the Roadmap at this time does not settle on adopting any particular one or set of them.

For comparison with the decarbonizing scenarios, the Roadmap defines two baseline scenarios.  The Reference scenario incorporates current projections for economic growth and energy use (as of 2010) including reductions in emissions from the first target date of 2020.  The Current Policies Initiative scenario (CPI) updates the Reference scenario primarily by accounting for changing attitudes and policies leading to reduced use of nuclear power in response to the nuclear accident at Fukushima, Japan.

The proposed decarbonizing scenarios to be implemented in providing energy for the EU are:

The High Energy Efficiency scenario implements high efficiency measures in buildings and appliances.  Stringent codes for new construction and appliances will take effect, and, with somewhat greater difficulty, retrofitting of existing structures will be undertaken.  Furthermore, utilities will be obligated to obtain energy savings.  This scenario envisions decreased demand in energy of more than 40% by 2050. 

The Diversified Supply Technologies scenario is based on competitive development of a variety of technologies in a market framework.  Carbon pricing (to be accomplished by the ETS; see the previous post) relies on public acceptance of nuclear power and carbon capture and storage (CCS).

The Delayed CCS scenario is similar to the Diversified scenario except that deployment of CCS technology is delayed.  This leads to a higher proportion of nuclear energy being used.

The Renewable Energy Sources (RES) scenario relies on strong support for developing RES, to a proportion of 75% of total energy, and 97% of electric power, by 2050.

The Low Nuclear scenario resembles the Diversified scenario but assumes no new nuclear power plants are built.  This leads to higher deployment of CCS technologies.

The Roadmap illustrates the proportions of energy that can be provided in 2030 and in 2050 from various sources using the scenarios above in the following graphic.

Gray bars: Ranges of proportional contributions envisioned for the various energy sources in the years shown.  Yellow diamonds: Actual proportions for the various sources in 2005.

Source: European Commission, Ref. 1

Graph 1 shows that renewable energy sources, which in 2005 provided only a small fraction of the EU’s total energy, will grow providing anywhere between about 40% and 60% by 2050 (the text in the Ref. 1 mentions as much as 75%, see above).  The contribution of oil decreases significantly, as does that of solid fuels (e.g., coal).  Nuclear energy is not predicted to grow significantly; indeed it may decrease significantly by 2050.

Major changes in the EU’s energy economy.  The Roadmap is predicated on several significant departures from the current energy economy.

Electric power usage is predicted to grow linearly to about 28% of total energy demand in 2050 even under the Reference or CPI scenarios.  Under the various decarbonization scenarios, however, electricity demand grows significantly to a predicted range of about 36-38%, with the main increase occurring after about 2031.  Electricity generation would have to undergo a significant transformation of its physical plant so that it can be 57-65% decarbonized by 2030, and 96-99% decarbonized by 2050.  Clearly, as seen in the graphic above, RES play a major role in achieving this goal. 

The graphic below illustrates the effects of new technologies on achieving decarbonization by 2050.  Overall energy usage is projected to decrease by

Gross energy consumption 1990-2010 (historical) and 2011-2050 (projected).  Note that the vertical axis begins at 1000 Mtoe (million tons of oil equivalent).  Blue: Reference and CPI scenarios.  Green: Effects of various decarbonization scenarios.

Source: European Commission, Ref. 1.

about 29% by 2050 as a result of deploying decarbonization technologies.

Renewable energy will grow to provide the biggest portion of energy supply by 2050.  The challenge for the EU is to create market incentives that will lead to more economical deployment and sale of power generated from renewable sources. Incentives need to be provided to develop advanced renewable technologies such as ocean energy, concentrated solar power and advanced biofuels.  Even so, it is foreseen that wind energy will be the largest component of RES. In addition energy storage modalities and expanded transmission capabilities will have to be supported.

Carbon capture and storage is a principal technology that permits continued use fossil fuels without contributing to atmospheric CO₂ emission.  CCS contributes to greater use of electricity in transport, which today is essentially completely reliant on primary inefficient burning of fossil fuels with their attendant emissions of CO₂.  The Roadmap notes the contingent nature of deploying CCS technology.  A recent post has characterized the challenges remaining with CCS.  If commercially implemented, the EC expects CCS to contribute significantly to most scenarios.  For example, in the Low Nuclear scenario up to 32% of power generation would rely on CCS.

The EC earlier had issued a critical assessment of needs for successfully deploying CCS (Ref. 2).  Previous EC documents had already established the need for widespread use of CCS in the EU starting in 2020.  This Impact Assessment (CCS-IA; Ref. 2) addresses how to proceed to demonstrate viable CCS technologies, building on the economic incentives provided by operation of the EU ETS (cap-and-trade market for emission allowances).  The CCS-IA recognizes the critical need, as of its issuance in 2008, to begin demonstration projects for CCS right away in order to have this technology available by 2020.

The CCS-IA stated that in order to meet such a timeline, CCS facilities demonstrating various available technologies (see, for example this previous post) would need to be constructed by 2015, and be operated successfully for the five years leading up to 2020.  It is estimated that 10-12 projects world be needed to exemplify differing technologies and geological features involved.  The technical and economic experience gained at this stage would be used to expand CCS to commercial significance in the following years.  Such expansion, because of the long lead times involved, would have to be started even as the shakedown operation of the demonstration plants was under way. 

The CCS-IA recognized that funding for the demonstrations was not available from the EU, so that Member States and private enterprise would need to fund them at the outset.  In addition, operation of the EU ETS would not provide sufficient carbon pricing to stimulate investment until after 2020, so that there would be significant early-stage funding imbalances.  The CCS-IA notes that carbon pricing in the range of EURO 25-30 (US$32.70-39.20 as of Feb. 1, 2012)/tonneCO₂ would approximate a break-even point for investment in CCS.

Energy efficiency in buildings, transport and lifestyles constitutes a major contributor to decarbonizing the energy economy (Energy Efficiency Plan 2011 (EEP); Ref. 4).  The Roadmap envisions that all buildings, including homes, be zero net consumers of energy, and indeed, could produce more energy than they use.  This is readily accomplished for new construction, but should be implemented for existing buildings as well.

The EEP recommends, first, making public buildings more energy efficient, in a campaign called “Leading by Example”.  From 2019, public buildings should be “nearly zero-energy”.  Refurbishing existing buildings should be undertaken at the rate of 3% per year, to attain a level of the best 10% of existing buildings, using energy performance contracting.

The EEP notes that 40% of energy use is in houses, of which two-thirds is for space heating.  It seeks to promote reducing energy consumption in homes by half to three-quarters, and that of appliances by half.  District heating, and combined heat-power systems will be promoted.  Energy service companies promote energy refurbishing by providing financing based on savings in projected energy expenses.  The EEP also promotes measures for energy efficiency in business and industry.  (Previous posts on this blog here and here have also dealt with energy efficiency with reference to the U. S.)

Energy efficiency in transport.  An EU-wide policy of efficiency in transport promotes drastic reductions in use of fossil fuels in most forms of transport (Ref. 5). The plan seeks to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 60%.  Important steps include eliminating gasoline-fueled cars in cities by 2050; 40% of aviation fuel to be sustainable by 2050; major expansion of high-speed rail leading to most medium-distance passenger transport being by rail by 2050; and 50% transfer of long-distance road freight to rail and water by 2050.

Enhanced energy efficiency will depend on a change in personal behavior and public attitudes.  This can be facilitated by appropriate policies that place capital for efficiency in hands of the public and the business community.

Fossil fuels are envisioned to continue playing a role in the short to intermediate term.  Coal, when burned, emits the most CO₂ per unit of energy obtained among the fossil fuels, about twice as much as natural gas.  If CCS becomes commercially viable, coal could continue to play a role. 

Natural gas is viewed as a source of flexible backup for fluctuating demand unless CCS becomes available for gas-burning technologies.  In that case gas could be considered as a largely renewable energy resource.  CCS, in order to contribute significantly to decarbonization, would have to be commercially viable by about 2030 and expand considerably beyond that date.

Oil is likely to remain an energy source in 2050, especially for use in long distance passenger and freight transport.  The Roadmap suggests that the EU maintain refining capacity in order to preserve its influence in the oil economy.

Nuclear energy is the single largest decarbonized energy source in the EU today.  The Roadmap notes that certain Member States consider the risks involved in nuclear energy to be unacceptable; the frame of mind in Europe has additionally grown more negative after the nuclear accident at the Fukushima facility in 2011.  Costs for ensuring safety, decommissioning aged plants and disposing of nuclear waste are likely to increase.  The EC proposes to maintain policies supporting nuclear energy in those States willing to continue its use.

Carbon pricing through the EU Emissions Trading Scheme, according to the Roadmap, provides the “central pillar of European climate policy”.  It provides a technology-neutral economic environment that stimulates the research, development and deployment (RD&D) of the various new technologies needed to implement the EU’s decarbonized energy economy.  Needs for new capital across the Roadmap are considerable, and the incentives for creating new profits are correspondingly great.  The Roadmap recognizes that private investment will drive much of this RD&D, while understanding that public support for developing certain new technologies, such as electric cars and decarbonizing technologies, may also be needed at the early stages.

Buy-in by the public is crucial to implementing the Roadmap.  Many aspects of life experienced by the population will be affected by deploying new technologies.  Employment opportunities and job requirements will be altered.  The physical environment experienced by the public will change its visual and structural aspects.  Energy pricing mechanisms will change, and for some fiscal support for charges may be needed.  The EU is a convention embracing 27 sovereign states; each will need to accept a greater degree of integration into a trans-European energy infrastructure.

Conclusion

The European Commission’s Energy Roadmap 2050 presents a detailed strategic and logistical path to achieve a reduction of between 80% and 95% in emissions of greenhouse gases, referenced to the level of emissions in 1990, by 2050.  As such it represents the world’s first concrete international program for reduction in emissions of greenhouse gases that progresses beyond the Kyoto Protocol.  Indeed, as a federation of 27 sovereign states, the Roadmap promulgated by the EC must be ratified by all Member States in order to be implemented within their respective borders.  In contrast, the nations of the world, meeting as Conferences of the Parties, most recently in Cancun and Durban have been unable to reach agreement on a successor to the Kyoto Protocol.  Currently, no agreement is anticipated before 2015, which, if successfully concluded, is not expected to enter into force before 2020.  The two nations with the highest emissions of greenhouse gases, China and the U. S., have no policies in place to lower the absolute amount of those emissions.  China emphasizes optimizing its energy intensity while continuing to expand its overall consumption of fossil fuels.  In the U. S., the state of California laudably embarking on an emission reduction program broadly similar to that of the EU’s Roadmap.

The Roadmap sets in motion a market-driven incentive to limit consumption of fossil fuels and promote policies that stimulate the RD&D needed to deploy decarbonizing technologies.  The market incentive originates from its Emissions Trading Scheme, a cap-and-trade mechanism with successively lower annual caps beginning in 2012.  The Roadmap considers in detail the candidate technologies, summarized in this post, that are to provide concrete implementation of various methods to achieve decarbonization of the EU’s energy economy. 

The Roadmap relies heavily on achieving energy efficiency across the energy economy, and on deploying renewable sources of energy to the greatest extent possible.  Nevertheless, use of fossil fuels remains in the picture; the CO₂ greenhouse gas resulting from their use is to be abated by CCS.  The Roadmap, and other assessments by agencies outside of Europe, have pointed out that at this time CCS remains a technology unproven at the industrial level required to abate the CO₂ emissions envisioned. Indeed, the Roadmap calls for a small number of CCS demonstration projects within the EU to create a knowledge and experience base in time for the need anticipated after about 2020.

The atmospheric concentration of CO₂ is increasing inexorably as the nations of the world expand their use of fossil fuels.  This results in ever-higher long-term global average temperatures, which are strongly correlated with extreme weather events that cause major economic and human harms around the world.  We humans have not yet grasped the reality that we must accept the costs of treating CO₂ as a waste product our historical energy economy.  The costs of abatement of emissions and adaptation to the higher global temperature already in place have not been accounted for in the price of energy.  And yet we already endure such costs in the form of the expenses of relief efforts and the high insurance benefits incurred from the damages inflicted by extreme weather events.  It behooves all of humanity rather to seek to minimize future damages by embarking on abatement and adaptation measures as soon as possible.

References

1. Energy Roadmap 2050, European Commission, COM(2011) 885/2; http://ec.europa.eu/energy/energy2020/roadmap/doc/com_2011_8852_en.pdf (accessed Jan. 15, 2012); European Commission - Press Release, Energy Roadmap 2050: a secure, competitive and low-carbon energy sector is possible, December 15, 2011; http://ec.europa.eu/energy/energy2020/roadmap/doc/com_2011_8852_en.pdf (accessed Jan.16, 2012).

2. Commission Staff Working Document, accompanying document Supporting Early Demonstration of Sustainable Power Generation from Fossil Fuels, Summary Of The Impact Assessment, European Commission, SEC(2008) 48, Jan. 23, 2008; http://ec.europa.eu/energy/climate_actions/doc/2008_co2_comm_ia_summary_en.pdf (accessed Jan. 19, 2012).

3. CO₂ Capture and Storage, Demonstration Projects, European Energy Programme for Recovery, 2010; http://ec.europa.eu/energy/publications/doc/2010_eepr_brochure_co2_en.pdf (accessed Jan.16, 2012).

4. Energy Efficiency Plan 2011, European Commission, March 8, 2011, COM(2011) 109 final; http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2011:0109:FIN:EN:PDF (accessed Feb. 1, 2012).

5. WHITE PAPER, Roadmap to a Single European Transport Area – Towards a competitive and resource efficient transport system, European Commission, March 28, 2011, COM(2011);  144 final; http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2011:0144:FIN:EN:PDF (accessed Feb. 1, 2012).

© 2012 Henry Auer